13
$\begingroup$

I have tried searching the literature for a result like the following, but have not found anything.

For a positive integer $m$, is it known that $$\{ \sin (k \pi / m): 1 \leq k \leq m/2, (k,m)=1 \}$$ is linearly independent over the rationals?

References or a proof would be greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I had an answer which claimed linear independence, but Vladimir Dotsenko explained it was fallacious (so it's been deleted). However, in conjunction with his remarks, the answer shows the result is true if $2m$ is square-free, if this is of any interest. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Jul 18, 2016 at 13:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Why not put that back as an answer? Combined with the other counterexample, it seems to provide a more useful answer to the question and improve the body of knowledge $\endgroup$ Jul 18, 2016 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ @RichardRast Thanks for the encouragement. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Jul 18, 2016 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ thanks to all for your answers. Both the counterexamples and Todd Trimble's proof for 2m square-free are really helpful and appreciated! $\endgroup$
    – user95204
    Jul 18, 2016 at 15:35

3 Answers 3

15
$\begingroup$

Note: Fedor and Vladimir have already answered the question, but this is a partial answer in the other direction, under a stronger hypothesis. (This answer, which I had earlier deleted, has been edited in response to some helpful comments.)

If $m$ is odd and square-free, then the claim of the OP holds.

Let $S$ be the set $\{k: 1 \leq k \leq m/2, (k, m) = 1\}$. If $\sum_{k \in S} a_k \sin(k\pi/m) = 0$ for some rationals $a_k$, then

$$\sum_{k \in S} a_k(e^{k\pi i/m} - e^{-k\pi i/m}) = 0.$$

Here $N = 2m$ is square-free, and in that case the primitive $N$-th roots of unity are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$ (see this mathstackexchange discussion: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/87290/basis-of-primitive-nth-roots-in-a-cyclotomic-extension).

For $N = 2m$, any odd $k \in S$ is prime to $N$ and hence $e^{k \pi i/m}, e^{-k\pi i/m}$ are primitive $N$-th roots of unity. If $k \in S$ is even, then $m + k$ is odd and prime to $m$ and thus to $N$, so $e^{(m + k)\pi i/m} = -e^{k\pi i/m}$ is also primitive $N$-th root of unity, as is its conjugate $e^{(m - k)\pi i/m}$; notice the $m-k$ lie in $\{j: m/2 \leq j \leq m, \gcd(j,m) = 1\}$ which is disjoint from $S$. Then

$$\begin{array}{lll} \sum_{k \in S} a_k(e^{k\pi i/m} - e^{-k\pi i/m}) & = & \sum_{\text{odd}\; k \in S} a_k(e^{k\pi i/m} - e^{-k\pi i/m}) + \sum_{\text{even}\; k \in S} a_k(e^{k\pi i/m} - e^{-k\pi i/m}) \\ & = & \sum_{\text{odd}\; k \in S} a_k(e^{k\pi i/m} - e^{-k\pi i/m}) + \sum_{\text{even}\; k \in S} a_k(e^{(m-k)\pi i/m} - e^{-(m-k)\pi i/m}) \end{array}$$

where all the primitive roots of unity appearing in the last expression are manifestly distinct. By linear independence of the primitive roots, if that linear combination is zero, then $a_k = 0$ for all $k$, as required.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear Todd, this is confusing. Primitive roots of unity only form a basis for a square-free $N$. (See math.stackexchange.com/questions/87290/… for instance.) $\endgroup$ Jul 18, 2016 at 12:47
  • $\begingroup$ @VladimirDotsenko Basis or not, don't we still have linear independence? I'm not seeing anything in Lang speaking against this, although maybe I'm overlooking something (?). $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Jul 18, 2016 at 12:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The number of primitive roots is equal to the degree of the extension so they are linearly independent if and only if they form a basis. For example, for $N=4$ the two primitive roots are $i$ and $-i$. $\endgroup$ Jul 18, 2016 at 13:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\exp(\pm k\pi i/m)$ is primitive $2m$-th root of unity only if $k$ is odd. That would be OK if $m$ was even, but then $N$ wouldn't be squarefree. $\endgroup$ Jul 18, 2016 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ @JarekKuben You are quite right; thank you very much. I have fixed the error. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Jul 19, 2016 at 15:03
22
$\begingroup$

$$\sin \frac{5\pi}{36}+\sin \frac{7\pi}{36}-\sin \frac{17\pi}{36}=0.$$ This may be otained by multiplying $2\sin\frac{\pi}6-1=0$ by $\cos \frac{\pi}{36}$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ How do you come up with this? $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Jul 19, 2016 at 16:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Nik at first, I started from 'almost counterexample' $2\sin\pi/6-\sin\pi/2=0$, which we all know from childhood. Then a natural idea to make a genuine counterexample is multiplying by some cosine and using $2\cos a\sin b=\sin(b+a)+\sin(b-a)$. Coprimality condition is easily examined. $\endgroup$ Jul 19, 2016 at 18:49
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ by the way, multiplying by $\cos \frac\pi{18}$ we get Vladimir's example $\endgroup$ Jul 22, 2016 at 6:42
13
$\begingroup$

We have $$\sin\frac{\pi}{9}+\sin\frac{2\pi}9-\sin\frac{4\pi}9=\sin\frac{2\pi}{18}+\sin\frac{4\pi}{18}-\sin\frac{8\pi}{18}=\sin\frac{2\pi}{18}-\sin\frac{8\pi}{18}+\sin\frac{14\pi}{18},$$ and the latter, denoting $\xi_{18}=\exp\frac{2\pi i}{18}$, is the imaginary part of $$\xi_{18}-\xi_{18}^4+\xi_{18}^7=\xi_{18}(1-\xi_{18}^3+\xi_{18}^6)=0.$$ Thus, your conjecture is wrong.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.